Literature DB >> 23939411

Medicare payment for cognitive vs procedural care: minding the gap.

Christine A Sinsky, David C Dugdale.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Health care costs in the United States are rising rapidly, and consensus exists that we are not achieving sufficient value for this investment. Historically, US physicians have been paid more for performing costly procedures that drive up spending and less for cognitive services that may conserve costs and promote population health.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the Medicare payment gap between representative cognitive and procedural services, each requiring similar amounts of physician time.
DESIGN: Observational analytical study comparing the hourly revenue generated by a physician performing cognitive services (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code 99214) and billing by time with that generated by physicians performing screening colonoscopy (Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code G0121) or cataract extraction (CPT code 66984) for Medicare beneficiaries.
SETTING: Outpatient medical practice. PARTICIPANTS: Medical care providers of outpatient services. EXPOSURE: Work relative-value unit assigned to physician services. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Payment for physician services.
RESULTS: The revenue for physician time spent on 2 common procedures (colonoscopy and cataract extraction) was 368% and 486%, respectively, of the revenue for a similar amount of physician time spent on cognitive care. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our analysis indicates that Medicare reimburses physicians 3 to 5 times more for common procedural care than for cognitive care and illustrates the financial pressures that may contribute to the US health care system’s emphasis on procedural care. We demonstrate that 2 common specialty procedures can generate more revenue in 1 to 2 hours of total time than a primary care physician receives for an entire day’s work.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23939411     DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9257

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  16 in total

1.  A Step toward Protecting Payments for Primary Care.

Authors:  Bruce E Landon
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2019-02-07       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Regarding "Committee Representation and Medicare Reimbursements: An Examination of the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale".

Authors:  Miriam J Laugesen
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Closing the gender pay gap in Canadian medicine.

Authors:  Michelle Cohen; Tara Kiran
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2020-08-31       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Assessment of the Contribution of the Work Relative Value Unit Scale to Differences in Physician Compensation Across Medical and Surgical Specialties.

Authors:  Christopher P Childers; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 14.766

5.  Understanding Work: Moving beyond the RVU.

Authors:  Mitchell Howard Rosner; Ronald J Falk
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 8.237

6.  Association of serum cytokines with colorectal polyp number and type in adult males.

Authors:  Sarah S Comstock; Diana Xu; Kari Hortos; Bruce Kovan; Sarah McCaskey; Dorothy R Pathak; Jenifer I Fenton
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 2.497

7.  Differences in Physician Income by Gender in a Multiregion Survey.

Authors:  Eric A Apaydin; Peggy G C Chen; Mark W Friedberg
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-05-11       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 8.  Colorectal cancer screening quality, cost and practice in an era of healthcare transformation.

Authors:  Martin Brotman
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 3.199

9.  Does relative value unit-based compensation shortchange the acute care surgeon?

Authors:  Diane A Schwartz; Xuan Hui; Catherine G Velopulos; Eric B Schneider; Shalini Selvarajah; Donald Lucas; Elliott R Haut; Nathaniel McQuay; Timothy M Pawlik; David T Efron; Adil H Haider
Journal:  J Trauma Acute Care Surg       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 3.313

10.  Targeted Reminder Phone Calls to Patients at High Risk of No-Show for Primary Care Appointment: A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Sachin J Shah; Patrick Cronin; Clemens S Hong; Andrew S Hwang; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Benjamin I Bearnot; Calvin A Richardson; Blair W Fosburgh; Alexandra B Kimball
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.